손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: ① (3) the court cites the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows; ② (4) the court cites the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows; ③ (3) the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter “Licensed Real Estate Agents Act”) of the fifth five-thirds of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows:
- All the practicing licensed real estate agent’s “B” is the broker.
- The “original, copy, or electronic document” in the last part of Article 25(3) shall be read as “a copy”.
The "Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions" in 6th 9th of the judgment of the first instance is regarded as "Licensed Real Estate Agents Act".
2. It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s commission of brokerage of each of the contracts of this case to the Defendant is a delegation under the Civil Act as to whether the part again used was in violation of the duty of care under the delegation contract
However, in full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to acknowledge that there was a violation of the duty of care due to the Defendant, taking into account the aforementioned evidence and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 13-17, 34, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and the whole purport of the pleadings, and thus, it cannot be confirmed that there was a violation
Furthermore, it is difficult for the Defendant to accurately predict the progress of the reconstruction redevelopment project due to the large number of ordinary variables in the reconstruction progress of the apartment complex and nearby houses prior to the conclusion of each contract of this case, it seems that it was difficult for the Defendant to specifically anticipate the relocation timing of residents at the time of conclusion of each contract of this case.
Thus, the contents that the defendant can inform the plaintiff should be improved, and this reconstruction and redevelopment project shall begin and progress.